Consistent Calvinistic Views are Inconceivable |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- Dr. Leighton Flowers demonstrates the tendency of some Calvinists, like James White, to drift into higher, more consistent Calvinistic views, regardless of how utterly inconceivable they may be to our God-given conscience and basic human intuition. Many on Twitter and Facebook accused Dr. Flowers of misrepresenting White's views on infant damnation, so that will be clearly laid out using White's own words. JOIN US LIVE!
To watch the full original video from White, go here: • Which Afterlife do Unb...
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101...
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” and his book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.co....
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com....
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101...
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101...
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702782965265
For updates and news follow us at: soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers go here: soteriology101....
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101...
Thanks for watching.
#BaalGate #Leighton Flowers #Calvinism #Provisionism #Calvinist #Salvation
Great show. When asked by Calvinist, “Who are you, O Man, to question God?” My response, “Are you God? Because I am questioning your understanding and interpretation of God’s word.”
Perfect response. We are NOT questioning God.
Who are you, O man? Are you God?
👌
Also, let’s not forget: Every Calvinist takes that verse WAY out of context.
They assume that it’s about a damned person asking God why He supposedly punishes them for being created unable to believe.
It’s actually answering the objection of hard-hearted Jews who are asking why God judges them for being hard-hearted, and thus useful for spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles.
@@GhostBearCommander Agreed, taking verses out of context is their specialty.
Also, "Numbers 23:19 gives me the right to hold God to his word. What gives you the right to blame him for child rape?"
Calvinist: "God is sovereign."
Leighton: "I'll see your 'God is sovereign' and raise you 'God is also good'."
Calvinist: God is sovereign and chose to predetermine all evil.
Christians: God is sovereign and chooses to be good.
You non-calvinists are soooo man centered, so, as a “man”, I’m going to define gods sovereignty for you, proving, of course that I’m right, making my view of god less man centered…..
of course,
it makes perfect sense because…………..🤔
@atyt11
Calvinists: "You man Centered fools. Who else could be more Man Centered than you?"
Jesus before Betlehem: "Hold my Beer." **Becomes Man**.
They need to stop saying sovereign and start saying divine malevolent dictatorship.
@@John17apologetics 👍👍 and since most of the calvie gods creatures were created for eternal destruction, to glorify him, you can add sadistic to that. Sadistic-divine-malevolent dictatorship.
I’m not questioning God, I’m questioning Calvinism: there is a difference.
Thanks for having me on again Leighton. It was a good stream.
Dang i missed it.
Why do you have to go around killing so many idols? Sheesh. Intolerant! 😂
Warren I can tell that Baal gate had gotten to you a little and that the responses to your comments were heavy on your heart. I just want to say you've handled this very graciously and I agree with Dr. Flowers that though you were misrepresented and misunderstood the fact that baby damnation is getting spotlight is a blessing. Keep up the good fight brother.
@shanelozoya9287 thank you!
I love when you two do these shows together. You two are like a double barrel shotgun.
Amen
I am so thankful for Dr. Flowers, Warren, and their ministry
Your statement Layton is absolutely true. The more I'm going to understand Calvinism the more I say Hallelujah to provisionism.
Does it never occur to people like the RogueCalvinist or Vodie (whose last name I cannot remember how to spell, apologies), that the reason a baby crying is so irritating is not because they're selfish, but rather because we are? Of course we want them to be quiet. It's intruding into OUR plans when they need something from us. Thank God He is a much better, more patient, and more loving parent than any of us.
Voddie goes much farther than saying babies irritate HIM. He calls them "vipers in diapers."
Voddie despises children. *Despises* them. Even if it occurred to him, it's not about that. It's about projecting his hatred *onto* children.
I’m guessing vodie was a viper as a child and if he is consistent must be a peach as a father & grandfather.
Toddler: Dad, I love you
Vodie: YOU!!! Are a VIPER!!!
In my case, Calvinism kept me captive for 15+ years because in my mind it was inconceivable that such reputable man, with so much studies and biblical languages were wrong. Until I found many good scholars on the other side too. I’m so glad for this channel. Thank you all. GBY
Many thanks to you Leighton and Warren for tackling these sensitive doctrines.
I will state; "The more that people come to understand calvinism, the more they will avoid it, and those within calvinism will come out from years of cognitive dissonance."
Agreed. The more Calvinist teaching I consume, and the more I learn about Calvinism, the less attractive it is.
I'm in a Calvinistic "lite" church, which is the only way I can hang on there. I've never discussed Provisionism with my pastor, though I know he knows I have ceased to be a Calvinist. Several years ago, I tried to persuade perhaps our brightest Elder to read John Lennox's devastating book, "Determined to Believe?" He took the paperback copy I gave him, but didn't read it, which disappointed me greatly.
@@bobtaylor170 perhaps he was "unwillingly determined"? {My tongue could not be further in my cheek}
@@andrewmorse2181 that's the reason!
@@bobtaylor170 I ordered it from Amazon. Should be here by Wednesday! Lennox deals with things very clearly and biblically. Love Him. 👍
Thank you guys for your vigilant ministry!
Matthew 7:9-11
"Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"
After getting to know the Lord over the years, I have come to see how extremely alien the fundamental doctrines of Calvinism are to the character of my Lord.
YHWH provides, just trust.
Amen
Child destruction was the final straw and the subsequent "heretical" labels from my own calvinist camp that led me out along with Leighton's, Kevin, Bible Brodown, and Chip Ingram
13:02 "questioning God" in itself implies a free will choice. I swear Paul would look at calvinist like they had three heads if he could hear what they teach.
Exactly!
The disciples would've labeled Calvinists as "lawless."
Peter warned believers about sinners who twisted the words of Paul & the rest of the scriptures:
"...And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are DIFFICULT to understand, which the IGNORANT and UNSTABLE TWIST to their own DESTRUCTION, as they do the other SCRIPTURES. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the ERROR of lawless people and lose your own stability." -2 Peter 3:15-16
@@primeobjective5469 Notice the context of Peter's letter is eschatological as it concerns his readers? The "you" who would soon experience the prophesied end of the old covenant world when the Lord comes on the clouds of heaven in the glory of His Father...
This SOON coming judgment in that day is what concerned Paul and makes him hard to understand today.
Our kids came home from youth group years ago telling us that the youth pastor told them that God and the Angels rejoice to send people to hell. We went to the youth pastor and asked if he said that because we couldn’t believe it. He said that yes he did say that to the kids. We had to leave the church for a few years until that pastor left the church. However, our kids and other children were damaged by that teaching.
So sad
Wow I would be furious as a parent!
I forgot to mention that This new pastor had been going to a lot of John Piper’s Desiring God conferences. He was trying to convert the entire church to Calvinism. Thankfully my husband and I were familiar with TULIP doctrine and so we recognized quickly what was going on. Eventually many left the church because of it. It has taken that church many years to recover and now is doing well as Calvinistic doctrines are not being taught there anymore. I think the leadership of the church learned a valuable lesson.
That is incredibly sad
I'm an ex-Reformed Baptist and I'm surprised James White did not just quote from his rule book, the 1689 Reformed Baptist Confession of Faith, "Chapter 10, entitled “Of Effectual Calling.” Matching the Westminster Confession of Faith almost verbatim, it reads, “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” So un-elect infants will go to hell according to their confession of faith. Please check this out!
Fantastic stream. Pin it because it is the clearest anti calvinist message I have ever seen and others will be looking need to be able to easily to find it.
I’m so thankful for your teaching Leighton! Bless you!!
Ironically if you consider an unborn baby or a 90 year old man who have the same exact opportunity which is 0 to be saved Under calvinism,they're both inconceivable!
At the 22:40 mark he cites the London Baptist confession and his own presupposition. I wasn’t aware either were divinely inspired or appropriate starting points
Hmm, yeah I didn't know either. Well, now we know. 😊
32:41 I absolutely LOVE the passion from Leighton for the next two and a half minutes!!
Scripture does not state that faith to be saved is ever a gift of God. However, God created mankind with the ability to believe.
Westminster Confession
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."
What happens to the non elect infants? 🧐
@JamesLancellotti I appreciate that you see the vile implications of infant damnation and speak against it. Here is my issue with those holding to a Calvinist position that want to claim they do not believe in infant damnation. As a former Calvinist I have read and heard several times the point being made that God chose before the foundation of the world His "elect", and that this was done without any thing that the elect person has or had not done or will do. This point is stressed to combat the idea of God being non partial in election. ( Romans 2:11) Yet on infant damnation this idea is thrown out the window and God now becomes partial in respect to infants, electing all of them? I mean I get it, but in my opinion this is another example of non consistency in Calvinism. IMO the Westminster Confession would be the consistent view within Calvinism. Is there a remedy to this issue that maybe I have not considered?
Thank you for logically and passionately addressing this false doctrine! Non-Christians getting wind of this false teaching will not want to hear the true Gospel teaching. They will tune us out completely. Sadly.
The issue I see with Calvinism is it goes against the Loving nature of God
Its more than that the preach another Jesus and gospel which Paul said was accursed in galatians
Powerful testimony about 53 min in from Warren. 👍🙏
I appreciate the argument being made that 5 point Calvinism speaks of God in ways that make Him agree with slavery and abortion. I wish Calvinists would directly deal with this instead or deflecting from the issue.
32:25 Leighton sets the piano on fire !🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💥💥
I have to chuckle when you guys tease Jordan. Nothing like a little comic relief. Other than that, the conversations you three guys have are the first youtube videos I look for.
Those who know God reject Calvinism sooner or later!!!
I hope that's the case. However, many like Spurgeon & Sproul apparently died on the hill of Calvinism... yikes.
@@mikelyons2831 Exactly 💯
@@mikelyons2831 That would put them in the "later" category.
Those with reading comprehension become Calvinists sooner or later
@@ianjackson2696 Explain?
If Calvinists are going to call us "Man-centered" okay then.
Calvinism is a God-blaming soteriology where as provisionism is a Man-blaming soteriology.
Now calvinist would cry "Misrepresentation! We would never say that!"
I say "Well I would never describe mine as a 'Man-centered' view point".
1:29:00 The fact that you can clearly represent scripture in proper context to refute the claims of Calvinism, using their own prooftexts and quoting their own scholars and yet they look you straight in the eye and deny the facts is mind numbing..🤯 Many times brainwashing is not a bad description. Keven Thompson, BTF, has done a deep dive over the last couple of years into the science of how the mind works. His desire was to discover 'how' certain people get easily convinced to 'buy-in' and swear allegiance to Calvinism and others don't.
Kevin's study involved a lot of secular works which are accurate and well documented regarding cults and other similar beliefs and how they can become imbedded among some and not others. The who, how, and why, it happens is fascinating. The data is accurate but he sure got a lot of criticism from some shortsighted, even pious, Christians for daring to use secular psychological studies and applying the science to Christianity. But what he learned helps explain how futile it usually is debating scripture with a Calvinist. Once they become convinced of Augustine's false premise, and Calvin's 'mystery' has merit, they literally filter EVERYTHING through TULIP FIRST! Willfully ignoring any proper context or any plain scripture to the contrary of their Doctrine. It's all massaged, explained away, or ignored as 'mystery, in order that TULIP survive.🤷🏻♂🤷🏻♂
3
Reply
Not only does Calvinism contradict the Bible on infant damnation but also the command to love your neighbor's. It seems like this Calvinism stuff is a doctrine of the devil. I've tried to understand the Calvinists worldviews but i can't find any good in it. It is an awful way to view our God
Did John Piper change his mind, recently? He flat out told a grieving mother to her face, that her dead child might be in Hell. It was sickening.
Where?
Please provide a link or keyword for searching
Calvinism in general is sickening. It doesn't matter what any individual Calvinists picks and chooses to say out loud. They all believe that satanic, disgusting lie.
Link to that exchange, please.
Still looking. It wasn’t on his channel, but it was less than a year ago. I’ll keep you posted.
Jesus loves children.
Jesus loves everyone!
BTW, I love these long streams, keep’’em coming, guys! Love ya both!🥰
I’m tracking with Leighton on surrendering ones “sense making ability” to one’s peril.
Yet, how would we reconcile that against the wild surrender Abraham made in his willingness to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice? It seems in the christian life a point where we do just this and are applauded for our efforts.
Like I often trust my wife implicitly and allow her to do things I often don’t comprehend as she has areas of expertise well beyond mine. I think there is a proper time to yield sense making but again it is only as good as the individual we are trusting I.e. I trust a surgeon to blunder a blade into my child, therefore, it yielding certainly calls for caution yet can still remain wise and tenable if the one you are yielding to is trustworthy. 🙌
It seems like infant damnation is the straw that breaks the camel’s back for Calvinism…
DW Yes it would seem so. I think the reason for that is - that Calvinists over the years have increasingly distanced themselves from Calvin's representation of his god.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal good pleasure of god - though the reason does not appear - they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of
destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
The historic Calvinist confessions clearly state the decree is what determines each individual's eternal destiny - and the decree is NOT based upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof.
But what I find when I dialog with many Calvinists today - and I provide quotes from Calvin or historic Calvinists - Calvinists today will often violently reject those quotes. And that is not even unusual for a Calvinist pastor.
With Calvin we have a god who creates the vast majority of the human population specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure. And Calvin would not blink when declaring it.
Todays Calvinism has removed all of the fangs from Calvin's god.
Most Calvinists today are oblivious to the degree to which they have been given an ARMINIANIZED version.
One can only hope and pray 🙏 it does, at least return to the dark age it oozed out of.
@@dw6528 I agree because if they clearly taught the doctrine of Calvinism most would reject it outright. They use double speak so as to hide the true teachings of Calvinism such as the two wills of god. My brother admitted to me that he has not read through the Bible but he listens daily to the teachings of the popular Calvinist teachers. I have given him scripture after scripture but he refuses the actual written word and instead chooses to believe Calvinist interpretations of same.
@@eileen230 DW: Beautifully said!!!
2:00:36 The quote from the "consistent Calvinist" reduced Leighton to a degree of laughter which was a delight.
1:05:30 Leighton's surprise was interesting. Calvinists are pretty clever to hide their true colors.(it's bad for business). But the laughter in the audience reveals something about the seduction of the doctrine too. Dr. Sproul's premise denies 2 Peter 3:9"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." I do not think Jesus will rejoice in casting people to damnation any more than a trial judge would experience "Happy Feet" when passing a death sentence. 🤔 Tragically, THIS, reveals what Calvinism teaches men to believe about the nature of our Heavenly Father.
And what one believes about the character of the God they worship will be acted out on their fellow man sooner or later.
The way he said it and laughing was very odd to me, but the question “How will I rejoice and be glad in heaven if I never see a family member again (such as my mom or dad) when I realize they are not there and are in hell or suffering in Sheol before I know they will be cast in the lake of fire?” Really this has been a question I have had if a close family member of mine dies in their sins. How do we answer that because that is a legitimate question that we all have to deal with. It has always been my understanding that although we do not fully understand all of Gods judgements now, we can trust that they are completely just and even good and righteous. And it has been my understanding from scripture that we will be praising God for His judgements (which includes his judgement of sinners) in heaven. This can be seen in revelation 19.
I recognize that “the great harlot” being judged by God is what is being praised. But won’t God judge every sinner at the great white throne judgement and they will be cast into outer darkness? So will ALL of Gods judgements be praised in heaven? Are ALL of His judgements truly righteous and are they really worthy to be praised? Will we understand this to a greater degree in heaven? Will we be praising God for all of His judgements even the ones towards our unbelieving family members?
@@Loves2HugItOut The Calvinist interprets God's immutability to mean God cannot change in any way. Even to making the claim, as Tyler Vela did with Warren McGrew, that God does not "think" which also means he cannot 'learn'.. I.e., all his thinking was done in eternity past, so I guess he used to think and quit at some point.🤔 Here are my thoughts. God's immutability resides in his nature. it is God's nature, the core of which is Love/noun, which motivates him and enables him to respond to the actions, prayers and request of men. And it his nature which permits him to be merciful and change his mind in response to men, which scripture says is does. This is actually what frustrated Jonah, who says he knew God would forgive them if they repented. Yet he was told to tell them they were all gonna die! And after they repented he was going to look stupid.🤷🏻♂
What I find is God repeatedly expressing his opinions and desires regarding judgment to come for the wickedness of men.
In Proverbs 24, God says we are not to rejoice at the downfall of our enemies.
In 2Peter 3 It says that he doesn't desire anyone to perish, but all to come to repentance.
In And in both 2Peter and Titus it says he does not delight in the death of the wicked.
I see no suggestion in Genesis that it pleased God to destroy the world with the flood.
In fact, he promised not to do it again because of man's sin.
I do not believe God's opinion of these judgments changes when they are enacted. They will be just and they must be done, but it never says God throws a party over it. Christ's judgment will be righteous, and even those receiving the worst of it will not deny this. They will be forced to bow their knee and confess he is Lord, and accept their fate.
However, I do not believe it is not something over which God, or man, will rejoice.
In my opinion, the suggestion by Dr. Sproul that we will 'rejoice' over those in torment, even our loved ones, reflects what he believes about the nature of the God he worships. It does not line up with the God Paul describes in 1 Cor. 13. Or the Heavenly Father Jesus portrayed on Earth.
It seems to me many Calvinists become fixated on God's power, judgment, and wrath. It's as if they believe he uses his power as they might if only they had it. In scripture we see Satan lusting after God's power... but with no respect for God's Love at all.
I predicts that Satan will never be interested in God's mercy .....until He is facing his own demise.
We will worship and praise God in eternity because of who he is. Knowing he is both merciful and just, "seeing him as he is", most of all because he is 'worthy' ... not because anyone is in eternal torment.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT But there is some level of praising and worshiping God over certain wicked people in torment, it happens specifically in Revelation 19.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT But the question still stands “How will I rejoice and be glad in heaven if I never see a family member again (such as my mom or dad) when I realize they are not there and are in hell or suffering in Sheol before I know they will be cast in the lake of fire?”
I do think having a greater understanding of Gods perfect judgement in how He deals with sinners, seeing that it truly is GOOD and RIGHT since EVERYTHING God does is truly and purely good will give us comfort. And I do think we will praise Him for all His judgements, even that sin is being punished.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT and honestly "give us comfort" really is not the right phrase because I think we will be in complete and perfect peace and happiness in heaven, there will be no need for "comfort" because of the glory of God and I have peace that even if i have a close family member in hell as terrible as this sounds the bible tells us there will be no tears or mourning in heaven so we must not be sad about it. I think because we will know that all of Gods judgements even in sending sinners to pay for their sin in hell is truly good and what is just and right. We will be praising God for His righteous judgements.
How stupid to argue that a baby's crying out in pain is proof that the baby is depraved.
So then what does Christ crying out in pain on the cross mean?
We are human. We experience discomfort and pain.
James White seemed to have a real hard time just say it, infant damnation, he didn’t just come straight out and say it plainly! Why? His own conscience won’t let him!
All the 19th century American Calvinists affirmed infant salvation. Webb wrote a whole book on it and argued that only Calvinistic irresistible grace could give a coherent account of it.
Check out James Whites new worship album, featuring guest singer, Amy grant and the hit song "Baby, baby.....gonna toss you in hell", the catchy "Sovereign Phobia" and the extended track "Leighton pelagian again"
Some teach as a classroom professor who never enters the real world. Surely any Bible teacher, even if they believe God actually condemns infants to hell, would realize such teaching would be received in horror. But then Calvinist believes individuals are regenerated before they are saved. Perhaps they think, when God regenerates someone, that person will just overcome the horror of infant damnation. Most lost people, if they accept infant damnation teaching, will also reject God. Thank you for presenting the true teaching against infant damnation.
I truly wonder how they (solid Calvinists) reconcile Psalm 139:13-16
Just for a start .
1:31:50 could it be that normal infant mortality in ancient times was so common that many could be convinced their baby may very likely die anyway and sacrificing it to the pagan god for crops was better than selfishly 'wasting' its likely 'normal' death for nothing? And without contraception making another didn't seem that difficult.🤔🤔 .... just thinking outside the box a bit.
Another factor was that most pagan religions that practiced child sacrifice also practiced temple prostitiution. As they didn't have the technology to do what modern leftists do, they also used child sacrifices to their "gods" as their version of "abortions".
Why are most Calvinist against infant damnation? Its clearly taught by Calvin himself.
DW: I believe Calvinism started distancing itself from Calvin pretty much after his death.
The TULIP for example - was created approximately 100 years after his death
And it is quite probable that he would have violently rejected the TULIP because it functions to obfuscate the doctrine of decrees which stipulates that the state of nature - including every man's nature - at every nano-second in time - is 100% meticulously predestined - and man's nature at any nanosecond in time cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be - and man is granted NO SAY in the matter of anything. That is Calvin's conception of divine sovereignty - and thus the most sacred of all things.
I suspect Calvinists found the general Christian population did not find Calvin's god palatable.
So Calvinism over the years - has worked to distance itself from Calvin.
Well, here's one who isn't.
You're thinking they're logical. That's where you're wrong.
@@r.rodriguez4991 DW: Well said! Logic is problematic for them frequently because they have a need to evade the law of no-contradiction.
For example - the doctrine stipulates everything is determined in every part by an infallible decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation because they are CONTRARY to the decree.
Thus ALTERNATIVES (such as [SIN] vs [NOT SIN] do not exist within creation.
If it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T - that decree is infallible and does not grant the existence of any ALTERNATIVE.
The Calvinist knows if that aspect of his doctrine is commonly known - people will reject it.
So there are things stipulated by the doctrine which the Calvinist cannot be TRUTH-FULL about.
And logic shines a flashlight on what those things.
Blessings!
@@JD10503 DW:: Good for you for being honest!!
Then you acknowledge the following
Calvin's god has two provisions for mankind:
1) His PRIMARY provision - is for the MANY - - whom he creates and designs specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure.
2) His SECONDARY provision is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
Right?
Do we have any scripture evidence that God rejoices at the suffering of humans?
No. But God's lack of joy, does not mean God does not punish wickedness.
R.C., Sproul has no scripture evidence that God is joyful at any human suffering. That belief is based on human vengefulness.
*THE MAN-CENTERED CALVINIST*
Any Calvinist who dares to assert a *SPECIAL CLASS* of persons exists whom Calvin's god automatically creates as elect - is back-pedaling the doctrine of divine election.
Where is that stipulated anywhere within Calvinism's doctrine of election?
Where is that stipulated anywhere within any Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9?
Where is it ever even hinted at by John Calvin?
Can we find this anyplace within his massive volumes of writings?
And Calvin during his lifetime - was the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE author and defender of the doctrine.
Certainly Calvin would have accused this of being a *MAN CENTERED* compromise of divine sovereignty
More than likely - the reason Calvinists falling into this compromise today - is due to worry over Calvinism's *IMAGE*
The worry that people will reject it as a doctrine of doom
And it will become classified as a radical fringe belief system
It's man-centered theology. Literally the first point of Calvinism is total depravity. Who wouldn't want God to do everything? A world where man can do anything because God has predestined it all? Easy-living.
There is a verse in Isaiah about age of accountability.
Is 7:16
I like how many Calvinist will say that there is no such concept in the Bible.
@@IdolKiller
Isaiah 7:14-16
[14] "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
[15] He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
[16] For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."
13:02 the crazy part is that God has decreed for the person to question Him while he has decreed you to question the decree by questioning the person who cant do other wise😂🤔🤯
That's because the Bible teaches that God predestines specific things, but nowhere does it say that God predestines everything that will happen. Augustine changed what he taught (the Biblical teaching) for 26 years, into what was taught by the Manichaean gnostics he was part of for 9 years, and taught that for the last 15 years of his life. Then, there was this sweeping statement, that God in eternity past predestined everything that would ever happen, including who would be saved and who would be lost. Setting aside the arguments that are used to make agreement with this seem necessary, we need to realize that the Bible does not teach this, and gnosticism did, and does.
And see, while theological debating does not like to resort to the realities of the spirits who use doctrines of devils to condemn God, destroying, if they can, the knowledge of God, those gnostic spirits do not have nice things to say about the "demiurge", the gnostic name for the Bible's God. Gnosticism make the "demiurge" evil, and a villain, and the "liberator" from the demiurge is Lucifer. So, what do we expect when we allow gnosticism to define the nature of the Bible's God?
@@lindajohnson4204 That goes a bit off the path. It seems clear from scripture that God predestines some for salvation and some not for salvation. Otherwise, there's no point in God's election - it would be superfluous.
What I think you are advocating is simple foreknowledge. Where God just knows what will happen but what happens in history is outside of his control. Therefore if God wanted something to happen, he wouldn't be powerful enough to make it happen.
@@343jonnyThat is not what scripture teaches. Predestination is only ever referencing Gods plan to save believers in Christ it never references unbelievers being made to be believers. Proorizō has nothing to do with predetermining only some people to be made believers.
@@JohnK557 Right, that God didn't elect individual persons, but that he elected that whoever would put faith in Christ would be saved. I'll bring up scripture in a second, but that still doesn't answer the other half - this view seems to be simple foreknowledge where God just foreknows who will be saved, and then takes "hands off" so to speak and lets things happen. So if God wanted someone on an island to hear the good news, there's nothing he could do to make that happen. Or say he didn't want Pharoah to come to power...he's powerless to change that.
As for the scripture, it seems apparent that God does elect individuals before his act of creation:
- Ephesians 1:4 "chose us before the foundation of the world"
- Acts 13:48 "as many as were appointed to eternal life"
- 2 Tim 1:9 "Who called us...before the ages began"
I think it's a misreading to say these are not God's act of choosing specific individuals prior to creation.
Yes Proorizō itself strictly means "to predetermine" and says nothing about the content of God's predetermination. But neither does hilasmos tell us the content of Christ's propitiation. The point is you have to read the context to see what is propitiated / what is being predetermined. Context determines meaning.
@@343jonny All you’re doing is saying that God doesn’t have the ability to choose to create people with the ability to make a real choice themselves. That contradicts scripture and undermines His sovereignty. Nowhere does it say He unconditionally and irresistibly saves some people.
Great show!!!!
Ironic that White can see how God can intervene in a particular instance that may not necessarily be applied across the board, but at the same time 'evidence' for decreeing every single person's fate is Pharoah, Jacob and Esau, etc.
There was a great book, “What Would Jesus Do?” The book makes questions like this more easily answered. In the end, God is full of mercy and still perfectly just. It is not a question how we reason it!
Asking what would Jesus do is using reason - no?
Just remember when asking "What would Jesus do?" that making a whip out of cords, using it to clear an area, and flipping over tables are in the realm of possibilities...
God has mercy upon whom he will and not upon whom he will not.
Yes.
And God that tells everyone who HONESTLY studies scripture. Ezekiel chapters 18 & 33 and Jeremiah 18 tells us who those are. The reason they cannot complain is that they were able to repent and serve him and they chose not to. They were evil and refused to repent of evil, or they were righteous and repented of being righteous.
In Ezekiel we see the same basic objection of Romans 9 in both of those sections of Ezekiel, where God states that Israel will call God unfair for not judging on the good deeds of the past to outweigh their current sinfulness and rebellion.
John Calvin said “Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed except those which the Lord had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.” - John Calvin, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 13:15. Calvin taught that all infants who die are reprobate.
It seems to me that this is where the doctrine of original sin takes you. The infant “deserves” to be in hell for the same reason all reprobates do- it sinned “in Adam.” Calvinists who say otherwise are inconsistent with their own system. If I accepted the doctrine of original sin then I could see how someone would arrive at the Calvinist doctrine of the damnation of infants. I could also see why the Catholic Church would develop the doctrine of infant baptism to “wash away” the original sin.
This is all Augustine’s fault.
Excellent quote. You know when it comes to original sin, wouldnt baby jesus had also be subject to original sin?
@@TeslaandAirbusesarewaytoofun the Catholics had to create the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary-the doctrine that Mary was born “without stain of original sin” and lived a sinless life also, in order to deal with that question. So if Jesus’s mother was without sin, including original sin, and his father was God, then Jesus wouldn’t have any sin because he didn’t inherit sin from either parent. So once the doctrine of original sin was accepted as true, then the doctrines of infant baptism and Marianism had to be created around it. That’s my understanding.
The more I hear Calvinist takes on Christian - in their own words - the more psychotic and evil those takes sound. I'll give the benefit of the doubt that many don't feel this way, but when I hear these leaders and teachers (who so many put up on pedestals) the lack of love for their fellow man - for their own children - is horrifying.
BTW Leigthon, Rumble doesn't force creators to censor themselves. It would be great if you would consider setting up a channel over there, even if you just double posted your videos on both Rumble and UA-cam.
Babies is an easy one. He told Jonah that he claimed (in essence) that they don't know their right hand from their left.
1:12:00 -- RC Sproul was indirectly appealing to "mystery" again, instead of "testing" the teachings of Calvinism themselves, to see if they are of God.
When I asked a consistent Calvinists "HOW" God could be JUST for damning those He purposely decreed outside any human will or exertion, to FULFILL His immutable decree to REJECT God, he replied with, "God is JUST, because God is JUST."
When I called him out saying he hadn't proven anything, that circular reasoning is a logical fallacy -- he dismissed the argument, saying I was "appealing to human logic, instead of God." 🤦♂️
I replied, "So, you reject human logic as opposed to what, godly logic?"
He labeled me a "Pelagian heretic", & stopped replying back.
So, let me get this straight. RC Sproul believed that, in heaven, a saint will be “so sanctified” as to be able to see his “own mother in hell and rejoice in that”. Meanwhile GOD, whose glory the Saints shall reflect says, “…As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked…” 😳??? How can anyone familiar with the Bible possibly believe that?
He was grieved.(regretted:bad translation) about humanity during flood. He grieved with the destruction
He loved the world. So much that he sent he's only begotten son to save us. Not condemn us. There is no sin in God.
I don't understand origional sin as it is understood
1:32:29 This is SO spot on!!!!
I think heaven for babies is a lot easier for them to attain then we who are yet alive can postulate…See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven
Ours is just as easy, but the difference is we have a choice because we are over the “age of understanding “ the Holy Spirit takes each individual to the place that they know their need of a Saviour. And every soul that God puts on this earth knows God because God has made it so . Now repenting and choosing to accept Christ as your saviour is the choice you need to make. Every soul. And there is no scripture in God’s word where He tells us that He has created some for salvation,
“Ohhh well you over there , no matter how much you cry out , as nope your not created for eternity with me “
That is just plan man made / chosen hypocrisy/ heresy!!!
Amen!!!
"Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" Jesus - Matthew 18:14
“You think babies deserve to be in God’s presence?”
My favorite response is: “No. No one deserves God. But I think God is loving. Adam and Eve didn’t deserve it either, yet they were in God’s presence and in perfect union with him. It’s not about merits - it’s about love.”
From the chat:
@HeavenGuy
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
I believe this is a key to the problem with Augustinian/Calvinist ideology; I think they are nostalgic for the OC God who spoke much about vengeance upon the enemies of Israel - and even upon Israel herself when she turned to idols. The mighty power and glory of God warring in the earth is what they want to see and hear and talk about against the enemies of God. But who do they see as their enemies of this God they depict? Those who profess faith in Christ...BECAUSE He established a NEW covenant for us.
Sahih Muslim 2662 c
'A'isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said:
Allah's Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: 'A'isha, per adventure, it may be otherwise, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father's loins and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell while they were yet in their father's loins. Well Islam and Calvinism share this same false teaching.
That's because Augustine and Muhammad both derived their theology from gnotic teachings.
There is a pattern of falsely presenting the position of the non-calvinist, either purposely or accidentally.
We should never move forward in a debate until both parties agree to what ( the premise). If we can't agree on that, there is no where to go.
You said "And yes, I'm aware that many (if not most) mainstream Calvinists believe God graciously saves all infants who die, and for that I'm thankful."
What? How can even a single calvinist believe that if their beloved 'doctrines of grace' emphatically preach that EVERY SINGLE BABY has been picked as elect or non elect from BEFORE they were born. Every single calvinist without exception believes that every single baby has already been stamped with "saved" or "doomed" before they were ever born. So for them all the unelect babies cannot and will not go to heaven. I think you are giving wayyyy too much credit to calvinists.... every calvinist believes each and every baby is either the elect or nonelect and the non elect will not in any way go to heaven.
“You think babies deserve to be in God’s presence?”
My favorite response is: “No. I think God is loving. Adam and Eve didn’t deserve it either, yet they were in God’s presence and in perfect union with him. It’s not about merits - it’s about love.”
Fascinating! As you spoke about the 25 year old, I thought about how Catholicism teaches ‘Invincible Ignorance’; that if a person (of any age) does not come to Christ to no fault of his own (someone who’s been taught bad/false things about Jesus and brainwashed perhaps?) then that person may be saved. If you assume that it is possible for someone to be in that situation and not be an infant (as someone who is severely retarded or has someone serious mental illnesses), why should God discriminate and save the infant who didn’t come to Him through no fault of his/her own, but send the adult with Down syndrome to hell? Great video.
Quoting from the April 19, 2007 INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION (Catholic) document THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
... However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable- to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
[From the Vatican website page /roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html]
This idea would fall under the category of "Biblical Inclusivism".
I believe a person would have to harden their own hearts against the simplicity of the gospel to choose to not respond.
@@bwc6520 are you saying that it is impossible for someone to have been so brainwashed about Christianity that he rejected that strawman version? Are you saying it is impossible for someone to have been preached such a distorted gospel that they (rightfully) reject it, and die before learning that what he rejected wasn’t Christianity at all? And, what’s more, what about someone who has a severe case of mental illness, and is mentally incapable of understanding and accepting Christianity? That would seem to be possible. Or someone with a mental retardation, etc.
@@efrainperezjr402 No. to say that an infant can be saved without having professed faith in Christ is not biblical inclusivism because that infant is saved by Christ’s sacrifice and through the grace of God. The alternative is to say that infants go to hell (unless they are part of the elect). But the idea is that an infant did not profess faith in Christ through circumstances beyond his/her control. I accept this but ALSO allow for the possibility (however remote) that an adult might end up not professing faith in Christ through circumstances beyond his control (e.g.: someone who might have been molested by a pastor and mentally has equated that with Christianity). That person might’ve otherwise accepted the gospel. Consider John 9:11 which has Jesus saying to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, YOU WOULD HAVE NO SIN; but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
Only God knows what could qualify as “circumstances beyond one’s co tell”.. If such scenario is impossible, then fine. But I’d be hard to make a case for this when there are people who are adults and yet severely mentally retarded. I believe it is possible. And, if possible, then there’s no reason why a person (infant) who isn’t a professed Christian should be saved by the grace of God and another (a teenager) not saved if both have not yet come to Christ through not fault of their own and due to circumstances beyond their control.
If an adult has knowledge (even if imperfect) and rejects Christ, then he would not be saved.
God is not bound by the norms He gave us. We are. But the good thief on the cross could not have been saved if this wasn’t through because he (through no fault of his own) could not have “believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9) because it hadn’t happened yet. Again, through no fault of his own.
Anyway, I don’t believe everybody goes to heaven because heaven would feel like hell to someone who wants to be his own master. After all, Jesus is called the bridegroom. Can you picture a good bridegroom compelling even those who don’t love him into a relationship with him? No, hell is real. People go to it. But God is justice.
Oh it drives me crazy when they say covenants of grace when it's the covenant of determinism.
They always have to go back to their confessions for affirmation of their doctrine! They need to go back further than Augustine, to the writer of Scripture, who reveals his magnificent character in the Word, not confessions!
That was where the Protestant Reformation fell short. While the reformers like Luther did emphasize Scripture more than the Roman Catholics did, they only went back to Augustine rather than exclusively to the Bible. Thus, much of the corrupted doctrine that had twisted Roman Catholicism was retained. In Calvin's case, he took things from bad to worse by taking Augustine's worst heresies and dialing them up to 11.
I was speaking with someone who like you Mr. Flowers...... I asked him a question and would love to hear your answer of yes or no? IF Judas Iscariot died as an infant would he be in heaven now? This guy I asked said......Since he did not commit a sin he would be in heaven now.
For Paul Washer...If a baby had the ability and strength of an adult , the baby wouldn't need the parent to provide anything and would just do it himself!
Daily Theology's videos seem to be mostly fawning over or regurgitating modern Calvinist figureheads - White, Bacham, Piper, MacArthur, et al - and filled with tired Calvinist talking points.
Where is the video of John Piper saying not to swallow the pill of determinism if you're going to leave the faith over it?
Calvinists take positions that contradict other positions. One belief contradicts another.
If all souls are assigned either to heaven or hell before they are born in a human body, then some dead babies will go to heaven and some to hell.
Or does "all," not mean, all?
The LBCF is not only implict but explicit in chapter 10.4.
Would we consider a parent that never delivers consequences for the bad behavior of their child, a "good," parent?
Good, is not the absence of consequences.
All the Christian theories that explain how God predestines some people to go to Heaven and some people to go to Hell are operating under the assumption that God’s cognitive ability outweighs the great desire of God to love an object being unconditionally, illimitably and eternally. God is not a mind, He is a Spirit. The heart of God may be defined as this impulse to love an object.
In order to love an object, and receive the stimulation emanating from the object being, the object must truly be an object. The object differs from God in one fundamental way: While God and people are both “Beings” we exist on vastly different levels. God as a being exists on the level of the Creator, whereas people exist on the level of the resultant being.
But anyone is free to kick against the goads. Just remember, while we are free to make choices, including intellectual conclusions, if they are bad choices we are not free to be truly happy and have the sense of peace that accompanies truth, beauty, goodness and an accurate description of God’s character/heart, and avoid the possibility of thinking, “how did I get myself into this” when we are wrong.
What exactly is the difference between Calvinism that says God does what He wills and Thelemanism with the main tenet of “Do what Thou wilt”? Particularly considering from a Calvinistic perspective, God foreknew Thelemanism and all the spiritual paths elevating evil selfishness prevalent in Satanism, worship of Lucifer, and in witchcraft that are not a product of any genuine portion of responsibility or freewill afforded to man by God gone awry, but rather they are a product of God Himself according to Calvinism.
Surrendering to sense making. So true.
Chris Harris knowingly, deceitfully and lyingly conflates worth and merit!
Leighton's stream breaks..."🎶🎵Let's all go to the lobby, to get something to eat!🎵🎶
James White seems to hold a consistent view.
Doesn't Warren claim one can lose salvation and deny original sin?
As much as I agree with the Provisionalist perspective, I do think left to our own we do not want God. Scripture is crystal clear on that.
I didn't say I think God choose a certain people, I do think the foresight view is biblical (Romans 8:29,1 Peter 1:2).
I would say this. Scripture is clear God knows who will be saved and that number can not change. He knows because he is God and knows all things.
Amen leighton tell it brother
Go away, James White!!!
Yes! I see an arrogant, condescending and foolish man in James White who is no longer influenced by the Holy Spirit but by the pride of the flesh.
Apparently John Wesley's mother believed in beating el cwappo outa crying babies so that they will lie quietly and be well behaved..."O Susanna we will not cry for you." Maybe that influenced his more Arminian views later on in his life.
It's not just about Calvinism, for it is as inconsistent to believe a just and loving God would punish an innocent baby that dies with eternal damnation, as to believe God would punish anyone with eternal damnation because they did not subscribe to belief in a doctrine, in other words punish them for simply being alive, as opposed to some horrendous sin they had committed. Yet Original Sin is the prerequisite doctrine of Christianity regarding man's necessity for redemption, as opposed to man being created in the image and likeness of God, living, moving, and having being in Him. This false belief says human beings are born inherently cursed, as opposed to being inherently of God ("Is it not written, ye are gods"). Original Sin then, with all its tortured ramifications, and doctrinal acrobatics necessary to make it work, represents as low a point in religious belief as any primitive pagan practice one could imagine, rivaling perhaps human sacrifice. Fools believe in original sin. Devils preach it. And those possessed of actual spiritual Knowledge reject it.
Hello,
Dr. Flowers says in this video Dr. James White says that he knows that some babies are going to hell. Could someone list the time stamp? I won’t have time to find it in 3 hour video. Thanks!
He starts the video of white answering the question of ID on his program at 20:00
I would encourage you to watch the whole clip which goes to about the 36:44 mark
But the point where white explicitly affirms it is about the 35:20 mark
22:32 white quotes the London Baptist confession that talks about "elect infants" and says God has the freedom to choose which infants are elect (going to heaven) and which will be damed to hell.
There are some sections of commentary from Leighton and Warren but you can use to speed function to get through it faster. But you can also skip their commentary an go straight to White's summary of his position after he quotes the LBC. at 24:40
@@Rawkabilly57
Thank you so much for finding that for me!
Are parents FREE to PUNISH their children UNJUSTLY? They CAN. They have the POWER but those who do are abusers
Infant damnation is the logical conclusion of Augustine's invented doctrine of Original Sin. If
Original Sin is true then GOD HIMSELF has IMPUTED the guilt of Adam's personal sin to all his descendants. Therefore, from man's conception God has enmity towards the infant because He considers them just as guilty of Adam when he sinned.
Here’s a strange view I hold! All babies go to heaven and grow up to decide if they want to serve Jesus or not. So some babies after they grow up in heaven may choose to reject Christ and go to hell!
Jewish wedding symbolism:
(A gospel within the gospel)
"Let not your heart be troubled: you believe in God, believe also in me.
In my Father's house (in heaven) are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, *I will com again* and receive you unto myself; *that where I am* there (in heaven) you may be also.
And where I go you know, and the way you know."
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: *no man* comes unto the Father (who art in heaven), *but* by me."
{John 14:1-6}
--The time of the wedding was determined by the bridegroom's father and at the time determined by the father the bridegroom would fetch his bride and bring her back to his place prepared for them at his father's house.
To the end [objective] he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness *before* God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ *with all his saints*
{1 Thessalonians 3:13}
We go to heaven for a thousand years. at Christ second coming with the resurrection of life.
Why did Adam sin?
Did Adam have a sinful nature?
How many temptations came Adam’s way before he surrendered?
Is your record, as per the above question, any worse?
Could Adam, Eve, Abel and Cain understand God's wishes after Adam's sin?
Can guilt be transferred from one person to another?
Can the consequences of another’s guilt affect others?
Is Sin a “substance” or an “action?”
Can an “action” be inherited?
Can acquired characteristics be passed on through ordinary generation?
Old and repeated does not mean it's wrong. We know what Romans 9 says and what you imagine it says.
I have a question for us all. Why can't we just follow Jesus in the simplicity of faith.
I’m speaking as a Pastor’s wife here….because the Christian walk is greatly affected by one’s soteriology. Real life example: a church leader is caught in disqualifying sin a consist Calvinist would say ,”God determined or caused this to happen to me.” (Blaming God for their own sin) A provisionist would say, “I freely chose sin” (taking full responsibility for my sin). There is no way I could counsel women to walk away from sin if I was a consistent Calvinist.
I seen the above delemma play out, and I’ve had to grapple with my own sin under heavy Calvinist influence, and I would have had to “surrender my sense making” in order to remain consistent.
You believe in Jesus, and receive from it that experience of His presence in your life, that "Abba, Father" experience. It might not be "loud", but it is _real._ It tells you that God has accepted your faith and saved you. You begin to learn more about salvation from the Bible, and your heart is full of joy. And you begin to face down the devil's intention to rob you of the goodness of God, and how thhe defenses of His goodness are in the Bible. What kills me is how this issue kidnaps the nature of God, and ftom then on, it's wrestling with this garbage every day. It's one clown pushing the "hardness of God" (with a grin) after another, and you're supposed to submit yourself to them, submit to their "authority", and try to see how paper thin your faith in Jesus can be beaten down into, and still survive. Sniffing your blood, the devil makes another grinning, sadistic pass at your faith, pretending to represent the faith from a more secure position than the likes of you.
No, we the babies trust Him. His sheep know His voice: know Him, and another, we will not follow.
I express this respectfully, but as I interact more with Calvinists, I notice parallels with my debates with Mormons. When confronted with doctrinal inconsistencies or contradictions, not in harmony with scripture, they often resort to invoking "mystery" or Romans 9 as an escape without directly addressing the specific issue-similar to how Mormons fall back on their testimony of Joseph Smith and the "burning in their bosom." That said, It's important to note that my observation does not generalize all Calvinists as intellectually dishonest people.
Even if we believe, and we do, that God is just to send Christ rejectors to hell, why would we rejoice?
No way White is a brother. I'm sorry, might be a strong statement but when you are that obsessed with defending a man over scripture and the goodness of God, you can only go so far and White has definitely crossed the line.
Truly, we need to pray for his soul.